Analysis question about priors #417
Replies: 1 comment 6 replies
-
|
Hi, You are right that these are ICA components obtained from mouse data, and are not compatible with rats. If you do not run dual regression, or the --data_diagnosis, these are not used, and so those parameters will be inconsequential. Otherwise, if you want to use those options, you need to provide the path (with --prior_maps) to a ICA decomposition from rat data that overlaps with your dataset in commonspace. You could do a group ICA decomposition within RABIES to get that from your own data. If you are curious about those parameters, consult the details in the QC webpage https://rabies.readthedocs.io/en/latest/analysis_QC.html, and the default ICA components are displayed as a supplementary figure in the rabies paper https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-50826-8. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Hello,
I'd like to know more about the priors in the analysis portion, which is a mandated selection that defaults to mouse results; however, I am working with rats and would like to get some insights to make better decisions. The preprocessing and confound are running well, and the analysis too, but I noticed by reading the help about these options that I was leaving on the default setting
--prior_maps PRIOR_MAPS (default: /home/mambauser/.local/share/rabies/melodic_IC.nii.gz)
--prior_bold_idx [PRIOR_BOLD_IDX ...] (default: [5, 12, 19])
--prior_confound_idx [PRIOR_CONFOUND_IDX ...] (default: [0, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29])
Do you think these selections are good enough for rat analysis? How were these selected? I understand these are outputs from Melodic, but what are those specific components, and what made those three bold and the remaining confounds? I am just observing the results, and they don't look bad, but I now wonder if they are correctly done.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions